Party composition rebalance

[jamoecw]

Um, just for the record ... just about anybody will need a leader to tell them to hold ranks, if doing so places them in danger.  Although modern military philosophy tends to do a somewhat better job of encouraging and putting to use one's individual will to survive, no degree of training in any form will ever condition people to just march off a cliff like lemmings.  Poorly trained troops are known for fleeing into the woods in a lathering panic before actually finding themselves in immediate danger, but when the danger is real and the exact course of said danger not easy to predict, everybody with any survival instinct at all will move.  A real tactician will take advantage of this, rather than trying to suppress it.

throughout history the elite were the ones that did the ambushes and raids.  due to the chaotic nature of these things you couldn't have a leader sitting over you telling you what to do all the time, you had to do what was needed without being told to do every little thing.  so no you wouldn't get someone willing to jump off a cliff, but you would get one that was willing to brace against an elephant charge or cataphract charge.

as for the rest, your examples were of war time conscription, what was posted was a decree demanding 1/2 of the population be soldiers.  can you give two times in history that there was even a part time soldiers that didn't go out and get some weaponry or training expected to be one for a couple of years without shipping off to war?

and as a final disagreement, while not really related to the discussion, even the soviets were given 1/4 ownership in a gun (not half as you stated), and they were shown how to load and shot said gun, which is both training and equipment well above the common peasant at the time and place, i know of no time in history when 1/2 of the population of a nation would march to war without some equipment or training.

[Ron Losey]

The original use of the term "militia" was a volunteer who provided his own equipment.  While they were generally expecting some kind of pay during their active military duty, they received no equipment beyond what they could provide or take from the enemy.  Any training was on-the-job, unless they were lucky enough to know that war might be coming and get a chance to start practicing ahead of time.  This was almost universally the use of the term "militia" before part-time internal security forces were assembled mid-20th century.

Issued military equipment was quite rare before mass production.  Even many professional troops were expected to acquire their own gear, and in many cases had to demonstrate proficiency before being allowed to join the army.  The famous English longbowmen had to provide all of their own gear except the bow, and prove they could use a bow.  The documents on that exist.  Plus knights, Japanese samurai, and others, same story - all gear was personal, and they were expected to have basic skills before applying for the job.  U.S. revolution, even the "regulars" mostly provided their own weapons, and all the "militia" were armed however they could, and training was just what they could get between fights.  Even the Roman Legions, famous for uniform equipment, did not issue the gear - soldiers were at most times expected to acquire and maintain their own.  (Before the reforms of Marius, the gear was not even standardized.)  Even the "uniform" was mostly a development of the 1700's ... before that, the closest they came was tabbards marked with their affiliation which were worn over whatever equipment they had.

When doing a model of the ancient world (real or fictional, as with Tolkien), it is significant to think about these things.  Superimposing a very recent model - troops go to boot camp, and are issued weapons - on a system where war was done/should be represented very differently (conscripts are massed in village center, march with whatever gear they can get) ... the result will not feel right.  Conscripts should look a little rag-tag, armed with whatever they could find.  That was normal.  The only people with really standard equipment were elite groups, whose equipment was upgraded when they joined the unit - and the presentations of that equipment was often done with much ceremony.

And that is history.  People DID go to war in large numbers, armed with whatever they could scratch up, supplemented by anything they were given or could steal.  That's because they were not fighting for a paycheck - they were fighting for their lives, and their homes.  Fortunately, few modern people have lived that way (as most modern wars, even if they include hostile occupation, seldom are intended for purposes of genocide), but that does not change history.  Throw people against an enemy that does not accept surrender, and you will see the same thing again.

The difference between "armed peasant" and "militia" is ... well ... nothing.

[jamoecw]

the marian reforms was about the state issuing equipment to soldiers, prior to that only those that could afford equipment were allowed to join the army.  in fact through out history peasants were not made into soldiers of any level unless they were to march off to be fodder (at which point they wouldn't have been given prior notice), or even given access to the most basic of weapons.

i said nothing of a boot camp, in fact i said:

...part time soldiers that didn't go out and get some weaponry or training...

hence i am stating that if you were all of a sudden told that you were now a soldier, you would in fact make an effort to get a weapon, or if you were in a region that dealt with using hand to hand against armed opponents you might try to learn that.  as a result the "armed peasant" would have a common low quality weapon of his faction, while the orcs would generally have the same, only that the orcs would also have armor due to being in battle frequently.  the reason why the peasant would have the same weapon as the professional would be due to a difference in weapon technology, the orcs would have to loot something better from an opponent that had better, and thus was greater than the run of the mill "armed peasant."

thus if you truly want to disagree i would suggest finding a time when a nation had a standing army of weaponless fodder.

[Ron Losey]

Not trying to "disagree" - just trying to clarify the point.  "Weaponless" is irrelevant - anybody can and will improvise SOMETHING they can use as a weapon.  It may be a pitchfork against machine guns, but it will be something that can inflict fatal wounds.  The point was that a volunteer militia would have nothing beyond what they could provide for themselves, steal, or salvage.  (Salvage being a relevant point - many systems that depend on volunteers have stockpiled out-of-use gear in anticipation of this need.)

But there is no reason to believe that, just because specific orders would be given to recruit volunteers in a time of war, that said volunteers would be better trained or equipped than random people who just picked up a weapon because life was hard.  Unless there was some statement that weapons or other equipment was issued, there is no real reason to believe it the case.

There are few examples in the last 2000 years or so of standing armies being built around providing their own equipment, with the exception of nobility and professional warrior classes (who were generally expected to be leading the armies anyway).  Peasant troops who joined an armed force full-time were normally either armed or provided funding to arm themselves, or some combination of the two.  But a militia, and/or a general draft, do not apply to regular standing armies.  These are measures taken in time of emergency.  While some places are more diligent about preparing for such emergencies in advance, no known system has ever operated around drafting everybody unless they were expecting to use them immediately.

Which comes back to the relevant point.  It is reasonable to assume that militia and recruits would have effectively no gear beyond what could be salvaged or would be commonly available as civilian personal defense, and that would likely be hit-and-miss at best.  Only those who had been full-time active military before the immediate emergency could be expected to have uniform gear and/or substantial training (regardless if it was issued or if they were expected to provide their own).

[jamoecw]

actually the most relevant precedent for such a decree would be alfred the great, as he decreed the creation of a garrisoned boroughs.  much of the garrison of a borough was made of peasants who had to provide their own equipment, which was both a spear and shield (the most common weapons in use at the time).  later on though it fell out of use do the expense of maintaining such a large standing force and peasants weren't used, except as fodder.  i think that this is where Tolkien would have gotten the idea, but yeah mostly when peasants marched off to war it was as fodder, armed only with a hunting spear or some such.

[The Papist]

While I appreciate your discussion (although there are very few references to where this information comes from), Tolkien's Middle Earth is populated with human armies similar, but not exactly parallel, to Medieval armies in technology.

That said, I just reread the RoTK, and both Gondor and Rohan are pretty well described as being made up of gallant noblemen-soldiers.  While there are no doubt support troops, Gondor especially seems to sport something of a regimented, modern style army organizationally.  There are archers, footmen, and knights (rangers too).  Everyone mentioned seems to have had some sort of training and while it is not clear where their equipment comes from, it does seems fairly standardized and is described as such.

Just my two cents.

[Conners]

Um, just for the record ... just about anybody will need a leader to tell them to hold ranks, if doing so places them in danger.  Although modern military philosophy tends to do a somewhat better job of encouraging and putting to use one's individual will to survive, no degree of training in any form will ever condition people to just march off a cliff like lemmings.

Not sure if you mean people never will or if they won't without a leader. Alexander the Great took over a city by having several of his men do just that, however (he showed off what his men would do for him, and the city surrendered).
Just mentioning, as an interesting point.

and as a final disagreement, while not really related to the discussion, even the soviets were given 1/4 ownership in a gun (not half as you stated), and they were shown how to load and shot said gun, which is both training and equipment well above the common peasant at the time and place, i know of no time in history when 1/2 of the population of a nation would march to war without some equipment or training.

Pitchforks were not great weapons in the medieval age, but at least they compared well enough for some chance of survival--unlike improvised weapons such as said farming implement vs. guns. As for training them how to shoot and reload their guns, it's a bit different than giving someone a club where you can naturally work out "you hit enemies with it". If you mean they trained them to be proficient shooters, that's a different case then.